trackstr777:1) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, you and everyone around you is unarmed.2) Shooter on a rampage, inside a building, and someone amongst you has a concealed carry permit and a handgun on their person.

What is the magic number?27 Killed?63 Killed?95 Killed?Pick a G@d D@mned number, and Commit to changing something when it has been hit. Because sooner or later you are going to see it. Me personally, it was ONE and we passed that point long ago.

Silverstaff:There are a lot of people on there who instantly jumped to talking about repealing the second amendment, about criminalizing all gun possession, talking about how barbaric and backwards the very idea of guns in non police/military hands is.

Those people are idiots.

Silverstaff:1. Improvements in psychiatric care. Single payer psychiatric care nationwide. Any American who wants counseling or psychiatric care should get it, for free, including medications and inpatient care. Would probably have the side effect of seriously cutting down on homelessness too.

Sounds nice but the cynic in me doesn't see this happening.

Silverstaff:2. Media changes. Stop sensationalizing this crap. Don't let it be a path to Herostratic Fame, i.e. making the people who did this famous. Downplay the name of the shooter, play up the names of the victims. Minimize coverage of the person who did it. Ill people who want to be famous shouldn't think of committing atrocities to get fame, fame from evil deed should be damn hard to get. The Romans had it right, Damnio Memoriae. We can't quite do that in a society with the First Amendment, but knowing how to deal with people who do bad things for the fame is millennia old challenge of society.

Sounds nice but the cynic in me doesn't see this happening (it's all about the $ due to our commercialized media)

Silverstaff:3. Regulate ammunition. I'd say make ammo like pseudoephedrine is in many states. Track the sales, and put an upper cap on how much can be bought per-person per-month.

I like that too but you just lost the support of the pro-gun folks. They'll never support anything like that.

Where in the article (or the petition) is it implied that guns will be taken?

I love that the auto- response when "gun control" is mentioned is "omg gun grabber blargh rabble cold dead hands".

You know, if gun nuts admitted there was a problem and took the initiative to help with reasonable gun control legislation...gun grabbing wouldn't be an option.

But, god forbid that happen.

The goal of this petition is to force the Obama Administration to produce legislation that limits access to guns.

Oh, I see, they don't want to take guns, they just want to restrict who and what guns any future person can own. Technically they aren't taking your gun so why all the complaints? No gun grabbing here.

If you're going to cry and whine, then you should do it with proper info. Blindly biatching about gun grabbing is pretty stupid when it isn't being suggested.

Mrtraveler01:ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

I think the question we need to ask is how much more regulation "pro-civil rights gun folks" would be willing to accept?

Mandatory 10 week military boot camp for anyone who wants a gun. The Amendment was supposed to apply to citizen militias, after all. A militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, should be well trained.

birdmanesq:Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?

mittromneysdog:chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.

As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.

I am the father of a six year old boy, and I've been moved to tears more than once by the coverage of these events. They showed a little memorial shrine some people had made, that had some little boy/girl's stuffed tiger wearing a bowtie. I know that was some victim's beloved toy, and I could NOT fight back the tears.

But damn, we're talking HALF A BILLION DOLLARS here. Good for you. Seriously. I'm just saying I'm not that much of a saint.

I have been the same way many times in the last 36 or so hours. My daughter was diagnosed with a heart condition when she was about ten, She has outgrown it now but back then, any time that the phone at my office rang, I was afraid it was my wife with terrible news. What those parents are going through is thousands of times worse than what I went through.

mittromneysdog:chuckufarlie: mittromneysdog: chuckufarlie: I would actually forego the powerball jack pot if we could get reasonable gun control laws.

Wow. If this is true, you are a MUCH better man than me.

As the father of two children, I have been hit very hard by recent events. If giving up a jackpot is all it would take, I would gladly do so.

I cannot even imagine how those parents feel right now. Their lives have been devastated.

I am the father of a six year old boy, and I've been moved to tears more than once by the coverage of these events. They showed a little memorial shrine some people had made, that had some little boy/girl's stuffed tiger wearing a bowtie. I know that was some victim's beloved toy, and I could NOT fight back the tears.

But damn, we're talking HALF A BILLION DOLLARS here. Good for you. Seriously. I'm just saying I'm not that much of a saint.

I'll tell you what I would forego the jackpot for though. Is if I could undo this nightmare, and get reasonable gun safety laws in place. If I could bring back those kids, it would be worth it.

Connecticut has "liberal" laws on declaring a person mentally unsound. They're one of only a few states that don't have forced treatment for mentally disturbed folks. Luckily for those who worked to reform Connecticut law, this guy was sheltered by his mother enough that in most any state he would have stayed off the radar of mental health screeners.

And, as I mentioned some posts ago, it seems that his mother's lax storage of her weapons is what allowed him to do this.

Lsherm:"syrynxx: Murder is already illegal and morally reprehensible. If someone has crossed that line in their mind, no other legislation is going to make much difference.

Well, they might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes."

You know what else might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes? Someone else on location who has a gun, knows how to use it, and makes sure that the person doesn't get 10 minutes.

If we live in a place where it takes those with the right tools 10 farking minutes to finally resolve a situation where every second is critical -- which we clearly do -- then we need to make sure that more people have the right tools.

And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).

violentsalvation:birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Like Chicago?

That whole argument is another correlation / causation and it ignores everything else. And you know it.

Actually, they control for that by lagging the gun possession variable. That's as close to a valid causal argument that you are going to get.

And everybody keeps bringing up Chicago like it means something. The per capita homicide rate here is bad, but it's better than lots of places. And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

The shooter's mother legally owned the murder weapons. She is a poster-child for typical NRA rhetoric about the right to bear-arms, except she was an idiot who did not have the sense to properly secure her guns. She and her son are the reason that our permissive gun laws feed these tragedies. If you think guns are nice things, they are the reason you can't have nice things, they and the millions just like them.

birdmanesq:rohar: birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?

Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.

I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't read anything by them. Specifically all the stuff that cites correlations between gun legislation and gun crime: a major portion of their work on the cost of gun violence.

See, in my world data trumps anecdote. And I'm pretty sure that Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig are two of the most highly respected empirical researchers of gun violence, who come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion as you, anecdotally, or with very broad bivariate relationships seem to have arrived at.

Sadly, the first 5 results from the googles doesn't provide that. Maybe you could show me?

ignatius_crumbcake:You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

I have read it.

Hell, I got an A when I took 400-level courses in Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties in college. I'm no lawyer, but I've sure as heck read up on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled four years ago that the right to bear arms is unconnected to militia service, it's a protected civil right that defends the right to bear arms for any lawful use (sporting, collecting, self-defense) without regard to membership in any form of militia.

The tortured syntax of the Second Amendment does mention the militia, but it doesn't connect the right to bear arms to it. That's the current law of the land.

While I've agreed that logically, this makes more sense than the partial bans people are proposing, from a practicality standpoint, all I say is good luck. Reasons why:

1) When you do start trying to take them all away, how exactly are you going to accomplish that? Firstly, 2nd amendment. Secondly, still a conservative SCOTUS. The outcry over this tragedy is heavy, but I don't think it's heavy enough for that kind of change.2) Millions and millions of firearms in the USA. How are you going to get them all?3) Even if you develop a plan to get them all, what about the people holding them who really want to keep their constitutional right to do so?4) Even if you combat all those people or change their minds and get ALL those guns...black market, anyone? Heroin, crack, and meth, all illegal substances. Hell some drugs have been illegal for the better part of the last century. Yet I don't use them nor have any friends who do, and I'm sure living in a downtown area and knowing people who know people, I could probably find any of them with a few phone calls or some driving to a bad area of town. Now say I'm motivated enough to take my own life, and want to take a bunch of people with me. You think some gang banger asshole living in the ghetto is going to properly vet me before he sells me some Saturday Night Special?

spmkk:And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).

chuckufarlie:I have been the same way many times in the last 36 or so hours. My daughter was diagnosed with a heart condition when she was about ten, She has outgrown it now but back then, any time that the phone at my office rang, I was afraid it was my wife with terrible news. What those parents are going through is thousands of times worse than what I went through.

Yeah, actually, my little boy was a preemie, and when he came out, it didn't look like he was going to make it. It was hard. But he pulled through, and now he's just as cute as they come.

I also teared up when they showed some parent reunited with her little girl. She picked her up and hugged her so tight. What made it awful was realizing their were 20 parents who didn't get to do that. And they'll never get to do that ever again. And it was just more than I could bear to think about.

Needless to say, my little guy is getting an extra generous Christmas this year. Just because.

rohar:birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defenseMost purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegalFirearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crimeFew criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizensWhere there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.Across states, more guns = more homicide

rohar:birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?

There is a body of work by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook available at your fingertips. All you have to do is google, friend.

violentsalvation:chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: chuckufarlie: violentsalvation: If they actually wanted to curb this kind of violence in America they would be asking for a doubling or tripling of mental health funding, and consider some amendments to HIPPA that allow certain diagnoses to be be reported to the NCIC. As a start. If someone wants to make a petition asking for something similar I'd sign it. There is no achievable amount of gun control that would make a bit of difference, otherwise.

yes, there is a mental health issue in the USA but more funding for mental health is not going to solve the problem, or even slow it down. The people in the last three shootings had not been diagnosed as mentally ill. Beyond that, a person that is sane and rational on Monday is fully capable of snapping on Tuesday and shooting up a school on Wednesday. How is your proposal going to help in that case?

Mental health only helps when you get the people diagnosed and medicated.

The medical officials call these shooters "rage killers". Rage is something that is rarely diagnosed and it usually comes on before it can be diagnosed.

Got any other bright ideas?

Do you have ANY ideas? Because guns aren't going away. So you might want to be open to something that could help, or you're just another part of the problem. The last three you picked to fit your argument might have been treated for mental illness if treatment was more readily available and destigmatized.

Of course guns can go away. At least the semi-automatic and automatic rifles. There is nothing that stands in the way of doing so except inertia. I think that shooting 20 kids might be enough to overcome that inertia.

lol. There are tens of millions of semi-auto firearms in the US, or more, millions of them have been resold and are legally unregistered. I own a handful myself. Good luck, you support a gun control argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.

There is a very easy way to identify men who own such weapons. All we need to do is get doctors in this country to identify the patients with small penises.

spmkk:You know what else might be able to slow down how many people that person can kill in 10 minutes? Someone else on location who has a gun, knows how to use it, and makes sure that the person doesn't get 10 minutes.

keithgabryelski:rohar: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?

Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defenseMost purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegalFirearms are used far more often to intimidate than in self-defense.Guns in the home are used more often to intimidate intimates than to thwart crime.Adolescents are far more likely to be threatened with a gun than to use one in self-defense.Criminals who are shot are typically the victims of crimeFew criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizensWhere there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.Across states, more guns = more homicide

Uh, there's nothing there that cites a correlation between gun control laws and violent crime. Hell, there's no mention of gun control laws.

birdmanesq:And, you know what, the handguns that are being used on the South and West Sides were generally purchased legally by straw buyers in Northwest Indiana and the quickly resold in the City.

That's a contradiction. Strawbuying is illegal. Ergo, the person who bought the weapon violated the law and should be imprisoned for it. If you have a problem with straw buyers, you'll have to ask the head of the ATF, DOJ, and Executive branch why they're not charging them with a crime.

TDBoedy:Well, unless the regulations people want deal with the safe storage of firearms then the point is kinda moot. The killer stole the weapons from his mother who he killed. He didn't pick these up at a gun show or some other "loophole". Its likely he couldn't 1) afford them and 2) pass any kind of background check needed for purchase.

This was the gun owner's failure to secure her own firearms coming back to haunt her.

rohar:birdmanesq: rohar: birdmanesq: Still to lazy to spend ten seconds googling Phil and Jens? If you want real statistics and analysis on this that's still a pretty good place to start.

But, see, you don't actually want to have an evidence informed conversation about this, do you?

Phil and Jens have never, in their entire history, cited a single correlation between gun control legislation and a change to the homicide rate.

I don't know what planet you live on, but in my world data > anecdote.

I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't read anything by them. Specifically all the stuff that cites correlations between gun legislation and gun crime: a major portion of their work on the cost of gun violence.

See, in my world data trumps anecdote. And I'm pretty sure that Phil Cook and Jens Ludwig are two of the most highly respected empirical researchers of gun violence, who come to almost exactly the opposite conclusion as you, anecdotally, or with very broad bivariate relationships seem to have arrived at.

Sadly, the first 5 results from the googles doesn't provide that. Maybe you could show me?

Mrtraveler01:"spmkk: And please -- don't embarrass yourself with the usual drivel about the imaginary risk of cross-fire. There is absolutely no situation where issuing a firearm to this woman and her colleagues would have resulted in more deaths, and many outcomes where it would have saved multiple lives (including her own).

Cross-fire is imaginary?

Wow, you just proved that all of physics is imaginary."

Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

GardenWeasel:themindiswatching: What if Obama submits a bill to Congress next month that extends mental healthcare to everyone? We could call it Medicare Part E or something. Surely people would be okay with that if it'll prevent at least one mass shooting, right?

They were wealthy. Adam had access to mental health care. That wasn't the problem. Whether or not he actually went is a different question.

It'll also take a destigmatization of mental illness in the USA, in terms of community and jobs/careers, or no one will attend for fear of retribution.

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and militaryDISAGREE -- Ban all assault weaponsDISAGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacityDISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

To the above 4 ideas, I argue that it's a lot of show, without much real practical effect. We have the TSA and shoe checks, but do you feel a lot of that is just looking like we're doing something, or do you genuinely feel safer going through an airport then you did previously? What would these changes practically do, in stopping these type of rampages?

DISAGREE -- Ban all handguns except for law enforcement and militaryAGREE -- Ban all assault weaponsAGREE -- Ban all magazines over a 5 round capacityDISAGREE -- Allow ownership of one rifle or shotgun per person who meets requirements

It shouldn't be easy to launch an assault. I know people will be able to modify legal weapons, but the ones who can't won't have access and the ones who can will be sending off "watch me" signals. I could compromise on the bans, though, if the steps to getting assault weapons and bigger magazines were more difficult -- a skill test maybe?

I also like this from Practical_DraconianAGREE -- Add a 32% surchage tax on all firearm purchases, new and used, for state mental health facilities. State's rights, building "the nuthouses" from the ground floor up and keeping it local.

birdmanesq:rohar: birdmanesq: Except, you know, all of the data that shows that denser concentrations of guns lead to denser concentrations of gun crimes, and that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun crime.

Except all that stuff.

Except that you COMPLETELY IGNORED demographic tendencies sure! You see, no matter the gun laws, people from WA will never act like people from LA. As a for instance, we send our daughters down there to show their tits off in public once a year. They never send theirs here.

That's why the correlation to a change in gun control laws v/ homicides is more important than demographic differences.

Again, I have yet to see this correlation either positive or negative. Surely, if I'm so wrong, you can show me right?

There is a body of work by Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook available at your fingertips. All you have to do is google, friend.

And, no, they aren't ignoring regional differences.

...but they cite no correlatiive data on this subject. Neither do you. I swear, this is like having a conversation with an end table.

spmkk:Nowhere else to troll on a Saturday night? Cross-fire is real. The oft-lamented "risk" that it will make a situation where one guy is shooting at people and everyone else is unarmed worse is imaginary.

Silverstaff:ignatius_crumbcake: You should also read the 2nd Amendment. "Well regulated" is right there at the beginning. We are just asking for some more regulation. A lot more. It's right there in the Bill of Rights.

I have read it.

Hell, I got an A when I took 400-level courses in Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties in college. I'm no lawyer, but I've sure as heck read up on civil liberties and the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled four years ago that the right to bear arms is unconnected to militia service, it's a protected civil right that defends the right to bear arms for any lawful use (sporting, collecting, self-defense) without regard to membership in any form of militia.

The tortured syntax of the Second Amendment does mention the militia, but it doesn't connect the right to bear arms to it. That's the current law of the land.

They also found in District of Columbia v. Heller that restrictions were fine. So, I say remove the exception to the NFA for anything with a removable magazine, treat em all as title II

Mrbogey:Lionel Mandrake: Oh look! Another idiot who thinks not toeing the NRA line makes you an anti-civil rights activist!!

Are you against ownership of firearms suitable for defense of oneself? Then you oppose a court sanctified civil right.

I am for having a discussion/considering ideas and actions that might prevent gun-relating killings (or any killings), including, but not limited to taking a look at what constitutes "arms" under the 2nd Amendment.

Clearly, there have always been "arms" that citizens are NOT allowed to "bear," so let's look at where to draw that line.

All rights have limits (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc), so let's consider some limitations.